*1 WEEKES, v. Administrator. 43511. FEW liability There on the of 1. is Pannell, a operator who, of motor is vehicle while fainting a unexpectedly by and stricken such as illness, or a spell, attack, renders him unconscious or which incapable controlling of vehicle, lack control the another, which is the to and where cause anticipate illness, fainting the driver no cause had to such spell or heart place investigation. attack at the and time under lack of Such control of the vehicle under circumstances these negligence. Martin, does Freeman constitute App.237 (1) (156
2. driver, “If a a from is in which ren- intoxication, condition
ders him incapable operating it with [an automobile] diligence skill, palpably and and this is known or apparent entering this car, fact, one is a proved for along other jury, the cоnsideration of the with facts, to light person on such question throw whether remaining the car or ordinary еntering exercised care it.” or his conduct Powell car, in the in reference to while Berry, 1917A LRA opinion and contrary 2 of the Anything in Division yield to the must supra, the headnote in Freeman State. superior аuthority Supreme this auto- being a as jury question 3. It to whether the a heart had the de- leaving mobile the rоad was died) (from fendant driver which he or the intoxication or assumed the risk driver, and not the whether riding guilty negligence or contributory alcohol, drinks of driver who knew consumed two liability question jury, for the of the defendant was summary for judgment granting defendant’s motion judgment is reversed.
Judgment Bell, Hall, Deen, Quillian, reversed. P. J., Whit- JJ., Jordan, J., judgment.
man, P. concurs concur. J., concur J., C. in Division 1 opinion, dissent Divisions 2 Argued 27, 6, 1968 March June Decided Rehearing July 23, 1968 dеnied R. George Bryan, Jr., Robert Cooper, W. Poole, Pearce & appellant. Smith, *2 K. Weinberg, Jr., L. John Weinberg Ansley, Ben
Long, & appellee. Dunlap, dissеnting part. in concurring in Judge, opinion. concur with is said in what Division 1 reason and for the 2, upon dissent from the bаsis Division App. in
stated the second division of Freeman v. 116 Ga. (156 237 SE2d reading
As to
this case dem-
Division
the evidence in
category
ap-
it to
onstrates
be somewhat out of the
(136
peared
Sparks
153),
v. Porcher,
App.
Ga.
SE2d
109
334
Judge
Judges
wherein
Frankum,
and I dis-
Jordan
sented, or in
Martin, supra,
Freeman v.
or the several cases cited
therein.
Plaintiff testified that Mr.
deceased driver
truck,
had taken
during
day,
two
of vodka
drinks
Augusta
onе at
about
at
p.m., and another Warrenton
12:30
being
p.m.,
paper cup
about
small
“about the sizе
each
a quarter.”
did not seem to have been sufficient to
These
him
nothing wrong
affect
or his
saw
driving.
get
speed
“did
over
He
limit.”
acci-
dent occurred
p.m.,
about
and at the time
4:30
the deceased
driving
right.”
“was
all
They
engaged in a
were
normal con-
versation
proceeding along
the road
а normal manner,
lane of traffic, neither
nor
meeting
passing anyone
when
suddenly slumped
steering
over the
wheel,
and the truck went into
ditch
Although
and struck a culvert.
prior
he had
history
of heart trouble it was mеdically de-
Darby
termined that
died
of a coronary occlusion.
Although the accident occurred some
of a mile
three-tenths
city
west of
Madison,
limits
there was some evidence
that several businesses of one kind or another were located in
speed
that
it does not
that
area,
аppear
of the truck or
driving
the deceased’s manner of
could be accounted as the
proximate
plaintiff’s injury.
cause of the
already
we have
As
pointed
no other
out, there was
traffic in the area at the time.
The deceased
at the same
of rate
coming
Augusta.
that hаd been observed in
There was
experience a
that
anticipate or foresee
nо reason
go into the
the truck would
as a result
charged
consequences
wrong-doer may
with thosе
ditch. “The
Seymour
foresight.”
range
prudent
only
and those
within
(20
citing
767),
App. 426,
SE2d
Elberton,
(120
NE
ALR
Ins.
sudden heart attack of deceased injury, his even not have suffered plaintiff but for which truck at a though been have area” outside of in a “business per of from to miles hour drivewаys seven area some town where there were leading off the road. real recognized tеstimony plaintiff
In say that you asked: “Would he was had been when the accident of Mr. if heart attack was the of the accident the cause agree him. A Yes, sir.” A. a heart attack? justified. could not be vеrdict for the Judge Felton concurs say that am authorized of matter. this view the et al. v. MARTIN MARTIN damages in the аction for filed this Plaintiff
Whitman, Jr., Skipworth, B. against William of Columbus and Frank K. Muscogee County, the Solicitor General county, the same general Martin, an assistant solicitor mem- police chief and consisting six other defendants Safety bers of the Board. Columbus